Grading

I spent the better (worse?) part of today grading student papers.

I don’t mind it as much as I make out; it just takes a lot of time, especially the first few in a batch and more especially, the first paper of the quarter.

I enjoy reading (most) students’ writing; I’m genuinely interested in what they have to say; I like making comments on their ideas (plus I can’t help myself from correcting simple errors like saying “then” when they mean “than” and writing “it’s” when they mean “its”), but I don’t like, and I’ve never liked, putting the number on the thing.

In recent years, under the guidance of more experienced colleagues, I’ve taken to using what we call “rubrics” to do the grading. I construct a chart that shows students just what I’m looking for; if they do all the parts of the assignment in accordance with the criteria I lay out, they can expect to score pretty highly on the piece.

I’m ambivalent about this. Part of me is all for transparency; after all, if I can’t describe what I expect from an assignment, where do I get off grading it? On the other hand, part of what makes an assignment good is that a student identifies for him or herself what qualifies as a good paper and does it.

Chances are, though, that this is just a “misery loves company” attitude on my part; since I had to do that as a student, I damn well expect these kids today to have to, as well.

School as hazing ritual, that’s what it’s all about.

I’ve toyed with the idea of having students grade themselves; one time, as a graduate student, I asked, on a short paper assignment, for students to write an argument for the grade they though they deserved in the class.

Most students were harder on themselves than I would have been.

It looks like that hazing ritual business really works.